Did Intel Make A Big Mistake With sandy Bridge?

[ALXAndy]

Haswell is nothing but a refresh of Ivy, which was a refresh of Sandy.

All on smaller dies of course, which have absolutely nothing to do with performance.

AMD managed 15% on Piledriver over BD. Intel can't even manage that.

Intel should have just released Romley on 2011, like they planned to do three years ago. But no, gotta get another payday....

 

[~>Dg<~]

heres how i see it each gen has about a 200mhz on the last.

sandy to ivy for eg to match each other sandy 4.2 ghz to match ivy at 4.0.

so when you look at it pretty poor performance leaps in last few additions but it is intel who change sockets everytime they sneeze.

 

[Dave2150]

Haswell is nothing but a refresh of Ivy, which was a refresh of Sandy.

All on smaller dies of course, which have absolutely nothing to do with performance.

AMD managed 15% on Piledriver over BD. Intel can't even manage that.

Intel should have just released Romley on 2011, like they planned to do three years ago. But no, gotta get another payday....

Oh god, here we go again. Andy with his AMD propaganda in another thread.

Bulldozer was pathetic. Piledriver made it less pathetic, though still way behind anything Intel offer.

Buying a FX piledriver today = greatly increased power consumption, greatly reduced performance in 90% of consumer games, applications, which are poorly threaded.

Yes Haswell wasn't much of a gain over Ivy, though it was still a gain. It still further cemented Intel's utter dominance over AMD.

The most laughable fact is that all AMD will offer for the next 2 years (until Zen release in 2016) are the same old Piledriver 'cripple' core CPU's.

 

[Disco_P]

The problem with sandy bridge was it was so good (especially with the 2500K) and over clocked so well that, combined with AMD's weaker CPUs for gaming that gamers have had very little reason to upgrade in the last couple of years. This has probably lost Intel money.

 

[Andy7]

The problem with sandy bridge was it was so good (especially with the 2500K) and over clocked so well that, combined with AMD's weaker CPUs for gaming that gamers have had very little reason to upgrade in the last couple of years. This has probably lost Intel money.

That is exactly the way I see it. If you have an 2500k or 2600k you won't gain much by going to Ivy or Haswell as the gains are rather poor.

 

[Rroff]

Pretty happy with my 4820K as an upgrade from my heavily clocked Q9550 - but I don't think CPU tech has really moved on high end performance wise all that much even today a heavily clocked Q6600 is by no means slow. I played around with a 3770 as an intermediate step and ended up putting it in a build for someone else as I didn't feel at the time it offered much over my Q9550.

Quite impressed though for what it is with the Z3740 - basically core for core, mhz for mhz the same as the core 2 CPUs but a mobile CPU - my tablet breezes through windows 8 and most heavy tasks thrown at it quite convincingly.

 

[DavidS14]

I think that Intel are much more focussed on increasing power efficiency now rather than outright performance especially with no real competition in performance cpu's.

I'm staying with my 3930@5GHz and just looking for a graphics upgrade now rather than the full X99 system I was planning on.

 

[ALXAndy]

Oh god, here we go again. Andy with his AMD propaganda in another thread.

Bulldozer was pathetic. Piledriver made it less pathetic, though still way behind anything Intel offer.

Buying a FX piledriver today = greatly increased power consumption, greatly reduced performance in 90% of consumer games, applications, which are poorly threaded.

Yes Haswell wasn't much of a gain over Ivy, though it was still a gain. It still further cemented Intel's utter dominance over AMD.

The most laughable fact is that all AMD will offer for the next 2 years (until Zen release in 2016) are the same old Piledriver 'cripple' core CPU's.

Bulldozer wasn't pathetic. Software support for it was pathetic, AMD's lack of attempt at getting it supported was pathetic. You can't brand a CPU pathetic unless it's literally so; IE - not even able to run a game or do what a CPU is supposed to.

Not getting into the power argument because I'm not going there on the whole Intel = making CPUs for tablets so the Intel desktop crowd all start banging on about power consumption. 1366 and 2011 CPUs chow down on power, don't see you moaning about that.

AMD don't need higher IPC or faster cores. At the end of the day what they have more than does the job, hence why they haven't bothered.

I'd be very, very surprised indeed if 'Zen' was chart topping. It'll probably be more of the same, value.

 

[Gazb]

I do think that HSA is going to be the next big jump in performance for cpu's.
We just don't have the software support for it atm to use its potential because only AMD APU's use it. However with Intel's huge increase in graphics in broadwell (half the die area in the core m pictures is for graphics), hopefully that means Intel will be pushing towards HSA as well and that will drive software support for it.

 

[Boomstick777]

What Intel are throwing at us now are basically ****.

Joke of a Company.

Yeah don't agree at all. Intel keep dropping stuff for enthusiasts even with AMD no where to be seen.. Sandybridge was like a boss, everything since has been a refinement.

If anything is a joke it's that AMD are still selling the same old FX chips in 2014, and now rumored to be selling them until 2016.

At least we have Intel X99.

Competition forces innovation, maybe people should making threads like this about AMD's lack of it.

 

[ALXAndy]

I do think that HSA is going to be the next big jump in performance for cpu's.
We just don't have the software support for it atm to use its potential because only AMD APU's use it. However with Intel's huge increase in graphics in broadwell (half the die area in the core m pictures is for graphics), hopefully that means Intel will be pushing towards HSA as well and that will drive software support for it.

HSA is for APUs. And it's for APUs so that you can game on a cheap one.

AMD's entire philosophy for years now has been cheap gaming CPUs/APUs/Modules whatever you want to call it.

That's why they designed Mantle, that's why they're trying to use the console HSA on a PC.

The way things are going you could quite probably see AMD pull out of the CPU market all together, once they get their APUs where they want them to be.

They can't compete with Intel, they won't compete with Intel. They do not have the money in place to do so.

Honestly, after all of these years it really does make me LOL when I hear the sighs because AMD have released a new CPU and it doesn't touch the Intels.

It's funny just how many people hate AMD, but then get all disappointed when they release a CPU that isn't as fast as Haswell. LOL.

 

[Gazb]

HSA is for APUs. And it's for APUs so that you can game on a cheap one.

AMD's entire philosophy for years now has been cheap gaming CPUs/APUs/Modules whatever you want to call it.

That's why they designed Mantle, that's why they're trying to use the console HSA on a PC.

The way things are going you could quite probably see AMD pull out of the CPU market all together, once they get their APUs where they want them to be.

They can't compete with Intel, they won't compete with Intel. They do not have the money in place to do so.

Honestly, after all of these years it really does make me LOL when I hear the sighs because AMD have released a new CPU and it doesn't touch the Intels.

It's funny just how many people hate AMD, but then get all disappointed when they release a CPU that isn't as fast as Haswell. LOL.

I'm talking about HSA to help harness the direct compute power that AMD's APU's have, and also Intel's upcoming Broadwell chips which I think are going to be Intel's 'APU'.

 

[gpuerrilla]

I'm talking about HSA to help harness the direct compute power that AMD's APU's have, and also Intel's upcoming Broadwell chips which I think are going to be Intel's 'APU'.

I think Andy is highlighting the senseless AMD hate. It is rather pointless, especially those that pretend to be neutral posting news, updates etc then in threads like this have a pop at them.

Intel are great! Whahey!!!

Then in the same breath whine about them not clocking to 5Ghz and barely offering any improvements from SB era! Classic.

 

[Nasher]

We have got to the point now where CPU technology is not going to improve much unless they either become way more efficient, or they start using something other than silicone (like carbon or graphite). Intel are just better at using the current materials, but until someone makes the jump we aren't going to see any more big leaps in performance.

 

[kylew_is_back]

To sum it up:

In terms of general overall performance the average increase based on combination of various applications, games and synthetic (least reliable) benchmarks by generation is as follows (assuming the same clockspeed and core count).


(45 nm) Penryn (tick)
(45 nm) Nehalem (tock) --> 19% IPC improvement
(32 nm) Westmere (tick) --> 2% IPC improvement
(32 nm) Sandy Bridge (tock) --> 10% IPC improvement
(22 nm) Ivy Bridge (tick) --> 6% IPC improvement
(22 nm) Haswell (tock) --> 6% IPC improvement
(14 nm) Broadwell (tick) --> ?%
(14 nm) Skylake (tock) --> ?%
( 7 nm) Cannonlake (tick) --> ?%

Since 2008 AMD is holding Intel back, let see if ZEN force Intel to make the big step forward.

 

[panyan]

Since 2008 AMD is holding Intel back, let see if ZEN force Intel to make the big step forward.

Im not sure id completely agree with that.

Nobody is holding back Intel but Intel. If they wanted to release something fantastic then it is within their power.

But i agree that if AMD bought out something fantastic then Intel would try to counter it.

 

[kylew_is_back]

Im not sure id completely agree with that.

Nobody is holding back Intel but Intel. If they wanted to release something fantastic then it is within their power.

But i agree that if AMD bought out something fantastic then Intel would try to counter it.

I guess "holding back" can be replaced with "They have no reason to spend more money to make big improvements". but you get what I mean

 

[MrMarvelous]

They're probably gimping them on purpose I think. People still buy them regardless.

 

[Tom B]

People do buy them but it's a little short sighted. I upgraded roughly once every two years between 1998 and 2008. I then got a i7 920 and had no reason to. I did an upgrade but bought at old X58 Xeon to replace it from ebay so intel still got no money from me.

I'd have certainly, and happily, continued upgrading every couple of years if there was any reason to. So in that regard intel have lost out on sales, people just don't see the need to upgrade regularly any more.

 

[~>Dg<~]

the thing is most people dont need the small percentage gain in the last 3 years.

5-10 percent max .

this is why its hard selling pc components as there hasnt been much performance gains unless you a professional editing and the such. which avg joe doesn't do.

same with games and now the new consoles are out then they will dictate the majority of games. so cpu games wise wont change much for a long time as consoles are pretty new out.

x99 stuff if you editing anything from sandybridge and you fine for next two to 3 years.

as said many times tough times ahead if you selling pc components.